FOEM OF A BILL AS A DEVICE, ETC. 119 the country where the new contract 'was made, it is a valid contract.^ If, however, the form of a bill of exchange, drawn upon and payable in a foreign country, is a mere shift to disguise usury, the form will be utterly dis- regarded, and the court will decide according to the real object of the parties. Thus, where a bill of exchange was drawn in New York, payable in Ala- bama, and the bill was for an antecedent debt, and a large discount was made from the bill, greater than the legal interest in either State, for the supposed difference of exchange the court considered the real question to be as to the hona fides of the parties.
And Chief Justice Taney said:^ "Another question presented and much discussed here is, whether the vaUdity of this contract depends upon the laws of New York or those of Alabama. So far as the mere question of usury is concerned, the question is not very important ; there is no stipulation for interest apparent on the p^per. The ten . per cent, in con- troversy is charged as the difference in exchange only, and not for interest and exchange. And if it were otherwise, the interest allowed in New York is seven per cent., and in Alabama, eight; and this small difference of one per cent, per annum upon a forbearance of sixty days could not materially affect the rate of exchange, and could hardly have any influence on the inquiry to be made by the jury. But there are other considerations which make it 1 Dewar.y. Span, 3 T. E., 435. ' Andrews v. Fond, 13 Peters. E., 65.
necessary to decide this question. The laws of New York make void the instrument when tainted with usury ; and if this bill is to be governed by the laws of New York, and if the jury should find that it was given upon an usurious consideration, the plain- tiff would not be entitled to recover, unless he was a bona fide holder without notice, and had given for it a valuable consideration; while by the laws of Alabama, he would